View Single Post
Old 11th March 2014, 08:38 PM   #79
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 5,283
Default

Wikipedia is what it is. It is neither good or bad, accurate or incorrect. It is only as good as the information presented and the reference material used to back up that information. It is regulated by its users so an entity really has absolutely no academic integrity beyond its own bibliography, which isn't to say that there are not some very well researched and documented Wikipedia entries. The Kastane entry, i am afraid, is not one of them. It is hardly the "pinnacle of finely tuned detail" that you would make it out to be. This is not because the information is necessarily wrong, though so of it might be, but because the entry has no footnotes or academically reliable references to follow through on. All that are provided at the bottom of the page are a group of links to images on the Oriental Arms page and other sales sites, a youtube video of a kastane on the Antiques Roadshow (and i can assure you that these guys notoriously get their info on swords from these regions wrong) and an article on the use of the kastane as a belly dancing sword written by a guy who was banned from this site long ago. So my complaint here Ibrahiim is that it is rather self-serving for you to present the info on this page as being some kind of "unveiled culminating note" when it is mostly written by you without much academic backing. This has been a wonderful and no doubt useful exercise in speculation and conjecture so far. Don't get me wrong, i am not being sarcastic when i call it useful as i believe that speculation is a very useful tool in the process of discover, and we have certainly seen and read a lot of pertinent material in these many threads on the subject. But until we can nail some of our speculative thinking down to actual fact i don't think we have anything to congratulate ourselves over.
By the way, since you are so keen on fine tuning your Wikipedia page on the subject, you might, as i previously suggested, want to reconsider the use of the term "Deity hilt". The lion, makara, serapendiya or whatever mythical beasts we wish to believe are represented on these swords are not, AFAIK, considered to be "deities" per se. Many Hindu deities do in fact incorporate various animal features in their depiction (Ganesha, Hanuman, etc.), but these mythical beasts are only associated with specific deities (i.e. a makara is often associated as the vehicle for the river goddess Ganga and the sea god Varuna) but are not seen as deities themselves.
David is offline   Reply With Quote